Monetary and Regulatory Hobbling: The Acquisition of Real Property by Public Institutions of Higher Education in Florida

If you build it, he will come. \u27 Protagonist Ray Kinsella, portrayed by Kevin Costner in the modern classic film Field of Dreams, heard an omnipotent voice make this statement. The voice compelled Kinsella to construct a baseball diamond in the middle of an Iowa cornfield. Field of Dreams recreated a nostalgic time when America\u27s favorite pastime involved the love of the game and sportsmanship, rather than egos and endorsement dollars. A determined man funded and built a baseball diamond, completing the project in a relatively short period of time. Although Kinsella did not know specifically who was to come, he remained committed to the project and believed in its purpose. When he completed the baseball diamond, something amazing happened. He, Kinsella\u27s father, did come, along with some of the greatest players to ever play the sport. Kinsella demonstrated what may happen when a person adheres to his dream without hesitation. If the scene\u27s geography were changed from a farm in Iowa to a public university or community college in Florida, and the protagonist changed from Kinsella to the president of one of those institutions, then the protagonist\u27s response might be something quite different. Rather than building a large-scale project with funding and construction completed in a short period of time, the president\u27s response may sound something like, He can\u27t come, because we can\u27t build it any time soon. The president\u27s response would reflect the frustration and difficulties encountered by those who seek to acquire land and build new facilities, both in a timely manner and at a competitive price, for Florida\u27s community colleges and state universities. He refers to a real person in our community, who would benefit greatly from a community college or university\u27s new facilities. This person may be a student seeking a high-quality, reasonably priced undergraduate or graduate level education; a student with career ambitions requiring a two-year, career-specific Associate in Science degree or technical certificate; a worker requiring job retraining to upgrade his or her skills or prepare for a new career; or, a prospective employee needing entry-level technical job skills. Post-secondary education plays an important role in helping many real-Ife people attain their real-life dreams. The objective of this article is to begin the search for ways to enable Florida\u27s public institutions of higher education to acquire real property at prices that make the most cost-effective use of public funds, and to complete acquisitions in a timely manner so that the institutions can meet their needs to serve students. It is my contention that two elements impede this objective. First, funding for land acquisition and educational facility construction is insufficient to meet the reasonable needs of Florida\u27s public universities and community colleges for land and buildings. Second, the current process of identifying the need for real property and obtaining the authorization and funding for acquisitions is too slow and cumbersome. This element generally places institutions in a disadvantageous bargaining position and also prevents them from moving quickly when a good purchasing opportunity arises. Funding is the more critical of the two problems. Even if the inherently problematic process was addressed, state funding for the capital outlay projects of public higher education is so scarce that the institutions would be unable to meet students\u27 needs. The problematic process exacerbates the financial situation by raising the cost of projects. Moreover, the delays caused by insufficient funding also tend to increase the cost of projects because the price of land and construction tend to increase over time. These problems existed before the economic slump of the early 2000\u27s. Florida\u27s current economic plight compounds an already extant situation. Students need post-secondary education now. They should not have to wait for a better economy. Moreover, an educated populace and a well-trained workforce are key to the economic growth of an area. We must provide educational facilities and the land on which to build those facilities in a timely, cost-effective manner. We cannot simply wait until the economy changes and the Legislature appropriates adequate funds. This article provides insight into the nature of the problems, and then suggests some solutions. Some of these suggestions are interim measures until the Florida Legislature provides adequate funding. Others could assist in achieving a long-term solution. The article also suggests a number of solutions to the overly cumbersome process. These recommendations will prove beneficial even after, or if, the adequacy of funding is addressed. This article examines and critiques the land acquisition process from the perspective of the public institutions of higher education in order to identify the issues that interfere with the institutions\u27 ability to achieve efficient, costeffective results in real estate acquisitions. The article begins by examining the problems in the process. First, for purposes of comparison, this article describes a typical real estate acquisition by a commercial business enterprise. Second, it describes the public higher education transaction, including the statutory and regulatory processes that govern decisionmaking, obtaining authority and funding for the acquisition, as well as the limited financing options. Third, the article pinpoints problematic issues in transactions of the public institutions of higher education. Finally, the article identifies possible solutions for both the process and funding issues. It also analyzes the legal and policy ramifications to identify and recommend those solutions most worthy of further study

Zoned Out! Examining Campus Speech Zones

In March 2002, twelve students were arrested at Florida State University for protesting outside the university\u27s designated speech zone. The same spring, students at West Virginia University were intimidated for engaging in political speech outside that institution\u27s two free speech zones. On November 13, 2002 prolife demonstrators were arrested when they stepped outside the free speech zone of California\u27s Citrus Community College. A student filed suit on May 20, 2003, challenging the regulation. On March 6, 2003 suit was filed on behalf of students of the University of Maryland at College Park challenging that university\u27s speech zone regulations governing public speaking and leafleting. A student at the University of Texas at El Paso sued on similar issues in May 2003, and a student at Texas Tech University\u27s law school sued in June 2003. On September 30, 2004 the federal district court in the latter case found a portion of the Texas Tech speech zone policy unconstitutional. In early 2005, after a controversial student protest against illegal immigration, the president of a Latino organization at the University of North Texas called for more university oversight of student speech, asking specifically that the university administration preview the content of expressive activities scheduled for the university\u27s speech zones. These are but a few of the incidents involving many institutions in recent years. Controversy has also occurred at: Shippensburg State University in Pennsylvania, the University of Houston, the University of South Florida Miami-Dade Community College, Appalachian State University, Tufts University, and the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater. An article in Trusteeship magazine declared: To a greater degree than at any time in recent memory, the actions and policies of higher education institutions concerning student speech not only are being scrutinized, but they also are becoming the subject of legal challenge with potentially grave consequences. \u27 Incidents involving campus speech zones\u27 are frequently followed by a contentious battle involving the university, the students, and sometimes a free speech advocacy organization. Civil activist groups, such as the FIRE, the ACLU, and the Rutherford Institute, often become involved. Regardless of whether a lawsuit is filed, the confrontation is often followed by a media campaign initiated by those opposing the university\u27s policy. The media campaign will likely disparage the university, accusing it of willfully disregarding the United States Constitution and the free speech rights of its own students. This strategic tactic is intended to focus negative attention on the university, with the goal of causing public embarrassment. The media campaign generally succeeds in achieving this goal. Such a campaign can have serious adverse effects on a public institution that depends on state appropriations, grants, and donations for its funding. It can also negatively impact the reputation of the university and harm its ability to recruit students and faculty. Clearly, use of campus speech zones by universities is a hot topic, one which will likely continue to be the subject of controversy and litigation. What is a responsible, law-abiding public university to do about campus speech zones? Simply eliminate its use of campus speech zones before an issue arises? Wait to see whether it is sued, then react? Perhaps the university should keep its head down and see if this is merely another short-lived higher education phenomenon. After all, current law does not necessitate the elimination of all campus speech zones. How much time, possibly the most valuable resource of today\u27s over-extended university official, ought to be devoted to this question in light of other seemingly more urgent questions confronting university officials? The issue of whether universities should eliminate their use of campus speech zones does not arise in a vacuum. Not only does it have First Amendment free speech implications, it is also often connected to the problem of hate speech and the controversial issue of whether universities can or should have speech codes. This hot topic also arises against the backdrop of post-9/11 America, a time when many Americans feel vulnerable and have heightened concerns about safety. Universities and society in general are concerned about the threat of terrorist attacks against soft targets such as universities. Some are also concerned, however, about the implications of more governmental intrusion into everyday life and the potential impact of the Patriot Act on universities and society in general. Now is a time of heightened international tensions, concern, patriotism, nationalism, distrust, feelings of vulnerability, and perhaps animosity toward certain foreigners and controversial ideas. All of these emotions are occurring during an era when the respective rights and responsibilities of the university, its students, and the community are already in flux and likely to change further. Moreover, the last several years have been times of especially scarce state funding for public higher education, during which the cost of tuition is rising at a rate higher than inflation. This raises questions as to the best allocation of resources. Will the costs for security be higher if individuals can distribute leaflets and engage in confrontational debates all over campus rather than in one defined and more easily secured location? What about large gatherings and demonstrations? Would it be easier and less costly to provide for security if these events are confined to one area of campus? What about the likelihood of large numbers of dropped leaflets everywhere if leafleting is permitted all over campus? Will clean-up costs be higher? Will slip-and-fall accidents occur if students or others slip on glossy leaflets dropped on staircases or elsewhere? It will be costly for the university to quickly dispatch workers to clean up large quantities of dropped leaflets to prevent such occurrences. Of course, if someone is injured because the dropped leaflets were not picked up quickly enough, the university could face liability for the victim\u27s injuries, thus creating another potential financial drain on an already decimated university budget. What about noise and disruption? The concept of campus speech zones developed during the turbulent years of the 1960s and early 1970s so that campus unrest would not interfere with classes, study areas, student dormitory life, and the general business operations of universities. These concerns still exist today. As if the foregoing was not enough, issues beyond day-to-day operations demand the time and attention of university administrators. The leaders of public universities engage constantly in efforts to obtain adequate funding from legislatures, to raise funds from donors, and to obtain grants from foundations and the government. Higher education institutions must also constantly review, revise, expand, and sometimes eliminate programs, based on factors such as community and industry needs, enrollment, and funding. Additionally, whether they are willing to admit it or not, American institutions of post-secondary education are in competition with entities offering the corporate training model of education. When confronted by these daily dilemmas, it is no wonder that some university officials feel campus speech zones are the least of their worries. So what is a university to do? Despite the demands of time, the campus speech zone issue deserves, and in fact requires, attention. Freedom of speech is inextricably connected with the essential character and purpose of the university as well as constituting one of the most treasured values of American society. Effective analysis is best accomplished when this topic receives the time and focused attention necessary to the task, without the distractions, pressure, and hype that have become common in First Amendment controversies involving universities. Without question, a public university\u27s campus speech zone policy must comply with First Amendment standards. Adherence to constitutional requirements is as essential to the process of drafting a university speech zone regulation as meeting the university\u27s other objectives. Scholarly writing on campus speech issues focuses, understandably, on constitutional issues. The only article specifically devoted to campus speech zones found by this author analyzes the topic primarily upon First Amendment public forum doctrine. Likewise, case law on campus speech zones focuses almost solely on the First Amendment aspects of the issue. Such case law, as well as case law on student free speech in higher education in general, ma, make mention of universities as the marketplace of ideas, but constitutional concerns, particularly the First Amendment, remain the focal point. Court decisions determine whether a specific university\u27s particular iteration of a campus speech zone policy is constitutional, and thus provide guidance for the drafting and design of campus speech zone regulations. They do little to help universities decide a more basic question, whether they should utilize campus speech zones at all. This crucial question has not received adequate attention. Discussion of campus speech zones is largely subsumed by discussion of student speech issues in general, and scholarly legal writing on student speech issues continues to keep constitutional issues, particularly First Amendment analysis, in the spotlight. The importance of compliance with constitutional standards is undisputable; it is absolutely mandatory and, more importantly, essential to the American way of life. However, in regards to campus speech zones, we ought not limit the discussion to constitutionality. Even if a campus speech zone regulation is properly formulated, well-drafted, supported by adequate substantial government interests, and otherwise constitutional, the analysis remains incomplete. There still remains an inadequately examined underlying question: Should a university utilize campus speech zones, and if so, how? This article focuses on that largely ignored, but fundamental question. A new analytic framework is necessary to examine campus speech zones. Specifically, decision-making with respect to these zones should be through a two-step process. Step one asks the fundamental policy questions: whether the particular university should utilize campus speech zones, and if so, how. Step two consists of designing and drafting a university campus speech zone policy that adheres to all constitutional requirements. The process should work as follows. If the answer to the essential step one question is yes, then the university should utilize that information to decide what general variety of campus speech zones meets its important interests. Only then should the decision-making progress to step two. At step two, the university designs its specific formulation of campus speech zones and drafts its regulations, ensuring that the regulations meet all constitutional requirements while also avoiding constitutional failings. At this point, the zones, as first envisioned at step one, may have to be fine-tuned to meet both constitutional standards and university needs. It is critical that the fundamental step one question be answered first. Step one enables a university to discover its true purposes for utilizing campus speech zones, to verify that those purposes align with the character of universities and the important current issues affecting the specific university, and to confirm that its campus speech zones pass constitutional muster. Although other scholars have examined step two, a comprehensive analysis of step one is surely needed. This article proposes this new analytic model and takes on the challenge of examining the essential policy question that constitutes step one. Every university is unique; therefore, no universally applicable answer to the step one question is possible. Each university presently employing or considering using campus speech zones should undertake a thorough step one analysis specific to its own unique institution. This article does not attempt to provide a one-size-fits-all answer to a question for which no single answer exists. Rather, it creates a framework, then carries out a comprehensive analysis of that framework to serve as a guide to universities as they undertake step one and examine the fundamental question of whether their university should utilize campus speech zones, and if so, how. The Introduction to this article outlines the problem of campus speech zones. It identifies that an essential question, namely, whether or not a university should use campus speech zones, has been lost amid the constitutional discussion in prior writings examining free speech on campus. Because there is no single, simple answer to this question, each institution must perform its own analysis. Next, Part II identifies the proposed analytic framework. Part III provides background information. This section describes the demise of the traditional in loco parentis philosophy, students\u27 attainment of basic civil rights in their relationship with their university, and basic concepts of First Amendment law necessary to the following discussion. Part III also provides background detail on several current high profile problems impacting universities. Part IV builds the framework for analysis, then undertakes a comprehensive analysis based on that framework. As already stated, this article does not attempt to provide a single answer applicable to all universities. Rather, it provides and analyzes the framework within which each university can make its own complex, individualized analysis. As a result, this article provides a thorough, much needed examination of a fundamental policy question that previously has been obscured. Finally, Part V consists of a summary conclusion of the work

Establishing a Leasehold through Eminent Domain: A Slippery Slope Made More Treacherous by Kelo

Consider this situation. A public college is in the process of expanding a campus. Students are registered for classes and it is important to those students, the local economy, and the quality of life in the community, that higher education continue to be provided on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately, despite careful planning to anticipate need and timely commencement of the construction project, unforeseen difficulties have arisen. Completion of construction will be delayed by six to eighteen months. The college has been leasing space for classes in a nearby office building, but the lease is expiring. The landlord refuses to extend the lease on any terms. After an exhaustive search, the college can obtain no other space in the area. It is faced with canceling most classes for the remainder of the construction period. Students and the public will be outraged. The college administration very much wants to continue to serve the public\u27s needs. Consider another example. In response to the sudden bankruptcy and closure of the manufacturing plant of a major local employer, a governmental entity needs to lease space in which to provide job retraining and workforce development services to those who have lost their jobs. In order to properly provide services, the governmental entity needs to locate the service center within a specific area of the county that is easily accessible by public transportation and that provides lots of free parking for the large number of clients who will be making lengthy visits to the service center. The governmental entity can find no space within the targeted area that meets all of its needs, except for a large vacant space within a shopping center. The center\u27s owners refuse to rent the space for this type of use because of the demand on parking, and because the clientele is not that which the shopping center wishes to attract. The government does not want to purchase a facility because it believes that the program is not likely to be needed in this location for longer than three 2 years. Why not use eminent domain to create the leaseholds that will provide solutions to these important problems? Perhaps it is time for governmental entities to seriously consider using eminent domain to acquire less than a fee simple interest in real property when the specific need is important, of a limited-rather than an indefinite-duration, and a bargained- for exchange cannot be negotiated. Many state and local governments are in financial difficulty, and the federal government claims to seek more cash-conscious means of providing services in order to reduce the deficit. The public might be better served if cash-strapped governments leased property rather than expending scarce tax dollars to purchase real property in fee simple through use of eminent domain. However, serious problems lie just below the surface of this seemingly good solution. It is fairly common for part or all of a tenant\u27s interest in real property to be taken when a governmental entity uses eminent domain to acquire fee simple title to the landlord\u27s realty in which the tenant\u27s space is located. Commercial leases typically contain provisions applicable to partial or total condemnation. Treatises address the situation, and much has been written about strategies for such situations in texts on commercial leasing and eminent domain. By contrast, there is little literature about the legal issues, policy considerations, or practical ramifications that arise when the government seeks to use eminent domain to create a leasehold interest in real property rather than acquiring a fee simple. The limited writings and case law on the topic summarily state that government can engage in such action as if it were beyond question. The careful analysis necessary to prove or disprove the conclusion is missing from the literature. Likewise, the controversial consequences of an affirmative answer have not been examined. This Article seeks to fill a part of that void. It examines, in detail, the question of whether or not a governmental entity can establish a leasehold through condemnation proceedings under its power of eminent domain. It then moves to the question of whether, or under what circumstances, government should use condemnation proceedings to establish a leasehold. The Article examines the severe problems that can arise from such government action. Finally, the Article suggests possible solutions. It suggests limitations that both respect the government\u27s ability to engage in takings, and uphold the checks and balances and individual autonomy that are essential to our social order and system of government. Part II provides an overview of that portion of takings law that is germane to the Article. Part III analyzes whether a governmental entity can create a term for years through condemnation proceedings based on the exercise of its power of eminent domain. It concludes that, under current law, government can take such action whenever eminent domain is a permissible means of obtaining fee simple title. This includes the power to use eminent domain to create leaseholds to be transferred to private parties in transactions analogous to Kelo v. City of New London. Part IV of this Article summarizes the circumstances, albeit limited, in which government ought to use eminent domain proceedings to establish a leasehold. It also introduces some of the concerns that can arise even from appropriate use of the power. Part V exposes serious problems that can arise out of such takings. A number of these harms are specific to takings that create a leasehold. Others can arise in takings in general but are exacerbated because of the unique circumstances that accompany condemnation proceedings to create a leasehold. Part V also explores whether these concerns are so intractable as to require prohibition of condemnation proceedings to establish leaseholds on the basis of public policy, but concludes that such a drastic remedy is not warranted. Ultimately, adjustments to the calculation of just compensation can ameliorate a number of the concerns, and refinements to the calculation are suggested. There are, however, remaining concerns that are so severe that I propose that eminent domain to create leaseholds through condemnation proceedings be limited as a matter of public policy to eliminate the most egregious harms to the public. Part V suggests limiting the permissible scope of condemnations that create leaseholds to those in which government itself, the public, or a private entity acting as an agent of government is occupying the leasehold. This provides the most effective and efficient solution. It is simpler to administer than other approaches, preserves the ability of government to use condemnation proceedings to establish a leasehold in appropriate circumstances, eliminates the most egregious harms, and protects from government intrusion the sphere of individual autonomy that is essential to the preservation of our social fabric. Part VI summarizes the proposed solutions

The Realization Doctrine in Florida Corporate Income Taxation: A History and an Analysis Since \u3cem\u3eS.R.G.\u3c/em\u3e

The authors analyze the present status of the doctrines of realization and recognition as they exist in Florida corporate income taxation. Relevant legislative history and recent cases, focusing on a conflict between these doctrines, are examined. The resulting problems are analyzed and possible solutions suggested

The Realization Doctrine in Florida Corporate Income Taxation: A History and an Analysis Since \u3cem\u3eS.R.G.\u3c/em\u3e

The authors analyze the present status of the doctrines of realization and recognition as they exist in Florida corporate income taxation. Relevant legislative history and recent cases, focusing on a conflict between these doctrines, are examined. The resulting problems are analyzed and possible solutions suggested

Marching Across the Putative Black/White Race Line: A Convergence of Narratology, History, and Theory

This Article introduces a category of women who, until now, have been omitted from the scholarly literature on the civil rights movement: northern white women who lived in the South and became active in the civil rights movement, while intending to continue to live in the South on a permanent basis following their activism. Prior to their activism, these women may have been viewed with suspicion because they were “newcomers” and “outsiders.” Their activism earned them the pejorative label “civil rights supporter.” This Article presents the stories of two such women. It examines their stories from the perspective of the legal narratology movement and compares them with white female activists in other categories. Next, it analyzes their experiences through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence. This analysis provides another perspective and voice, and deeper understanding of the tumult of the civil rights era. Like works on other categories of women who participated in the civil rights movement, this Article enhances our knowledge of the civil rights movement, race relations, and the roles played by women

When Keton Met Twombly-Iqbal: Implications for Pretext Challenges to Eminent Domain

Some of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in recent years have involved the seemingly mundane topics of property rights and interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, in 2005, the Court\u27s decision in Kelo v. City of New London1 ignited public outrage and sparked demands that states take action to impose more restrictive limits on government\u27s use of eminent domain. Kelo captured media attention and galvanized an eminent domain reform movement that, as of the end of 2008, had produced state-level reform in forty-three states. It generated keen interest and vigorous debate among scholars, students, government officials, attorneys specializing in eminent domain, developers, activists, and political commentators. Eminent domain issues remain of great interest to the public and the media continues to focus attention on eminent domain injustices. The Court\u27s 2007 decision in the antitrust case Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly retire[d] ,, at least in part, Conley v. Gibson\u27s longstanding interpretation that had governed pleadings and motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in favor of a plausibility standard. Finally, the Court\u27s 2009 decision Ashcroft v. Iqbal\u27 confirmed that Twombly was not limited to antitrust cases under the Sherman Act, but covered all cases governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court in Iqbal went on to announce a two-pronged test for examining motions under Rule 12(b)(6) that may prove to make it even more difficult for complaints to survive such motions to dismiss. While the Twombly-Iqbal duo attracted little media or public attention, it startled judges, litigators, and scholars. It has generated consternation, confusion, controversy, and debate among them. It has apparently gained political attention as evidenced by a bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Arlen Specter that, if enacted in its present form, would provide that a Federal Court shall not dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) or (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Conley v. Gibson. \u27The Twombly-Iqbal duo, like Kelo, has caused more than a little upheaval. What happens when Kelo meets Twombly-Iqbal? This article explores the possible impact of Twombly-Iqbal on pretext challenges to takings under the power of eminent domain. It suggests that the procedural changes wrought by Twombly-Iqbal will make it even more difficult for landowners to be successful in bringing such challenges on the federal level. With federal opportunities for challenges thus further curtailed, challenges to takings based on state law become increasingly important. At the same time, states that utilize the prior interpretation of pleadings and Rule 12(b)(6) established by Conley under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be faced with the question of whether or not to adopt all, some, or any of the modifications created by Twombly-Iqbal. This article also suggests that use at the state level of the Twombly-Iqbal test may undermine the viability of pretext challenges based on state law. States\u27 decisions of whether or not, and if so, how, to modify state rules of procedure are usually made on a transsubstantive basis, not dictated by their impact in one area of law. However, the importance that citizens attach to property rights has been made clear by the public outrage that followed Kelo and the subsequent demand for reform at the state level. Thus, it is important that the impact of Twombly-Iqbal on states\u27 eminent domain laws, particularly those that address pretextual takings in which eminent domain might be abused to benefit private parties, be kept in mind as states consider changes to their procedural rules. Obviously, eminent domain reformers who intend to protect or establish meaningful pretext challenges to eminent domain on the state level need to be on guard against states\u27 incorporation of Twombly-Iqbal in state rules of civil procedure

Section 529 Prepaid College Tuition Scholarships: Help In Uncertain Economic Times

The economy is wretched. The United States\u27 economic recovery is dependent, in part, on the country\u27s position in a global economy. If we as a nation wish to remain competitive in a knowledge-based economy that requires a higher level of education, we must facilitate greater access to postsecondary education.\u27 Unfortunately, in the last two decades, the United States has fallen from first to tenth place in the world in the proportion of its population that has obtained that all important postsecondary education. President Obama has set a goal of restoring the United States to first place by 2020. The United States faces a number of problems when it comes to facilitating access to higher education. For many years, children in a large segment of our society, the economically disadvantaged, have not even dreamed of graduating from high school and going to college. If we are to make any serious inroads into the proportion of our population that has attained postsecondary education, we must prepare children within this group for postsecondary education and provide access for them. Now we have a new problem hampering students from families whose children have traditionally attended college. Their families\u27 college savings have been decimated just as these children are about to attend college. We, as a nation, cannot afford to lose these children from the proportion of our population that has attained higher education. While there is no single silver bullet for the nation\u27s educational woes, this Article proposes a model that will prove effective for both cohorts of students. It is based on Florida\u27s highly successful, costeffective prepaid college tuition scholarship program, a jewel that has gone largely unnoticed. This Article evaluates and recommends the existing program for economically disadvantaged children, and suggests how it can be adapted to assist students whose college savings have recently evaporated, especially in those states that already have prepaid tuition plans

Eminent Domain Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: Private Benefit Masquerading as a Classic Public Use

A gaping hole remains unaddressed in the midst of the debate on eminent domain. It is barely mentioned in the reform movement that was energized by Kelo v. City of New London.1 It is understandable that the reform movement focused on private to private transfers, because that was the potential form of abuse that was at issue in Kelo. However, this approach left open the possibility that those intent on reaping private benefit from eminent domain could do so by structuring transactions using public ownership. This strategic maneuver has the potential of circumventing even some of the strongest reform legislation. While this structure may not enable every Kelo-type taking, it works often enough that it must be recognized and addressed. It is an area ripe for abuse, but is more difficult to detect than the private to private transfer in Kelo. These covert private to private transfers should be of as much concern because they cause the same harm. Like the infamous result in Kelo, the major beneficiary of the taking is a private party. Often the private party initiates the activity that results in the taking. This Article reveals the extent and seriousness of this additional form of abuse and seeks to encourage its inclusion within the eminent domain reform movement so that effective means of addressing it can be developed